Dataset Information

Sarcopenia predicts adverse outcomes in an elderly population with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The development of sarcopenia is attributed to normal aging and factors like type 2 diabetes, obesity, inactivity, reduced testosterone levels, and malnutrition, which are factors of poor prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis to assess whether preoperative sarcopenia can be used to predict the outcomes after cardiac surgery in elderly patients with CAD.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science were searched for available papers published up to December 2020. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (MACE). The secondary outcomes were mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization. The random-effects model was used. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were estimated.

Results

Ten studies were included, with 3707 patients followed for 6 months to 4.5 ± 2.3 years. The sarcopenia population had a higher rate of MACE compared to the non-sarcopenia population (HR = 2.27, 95%CI: 1.58-3.27, P < 0.001; I² = 60.0%, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.02). The association between sarcopenia and MACE was significant when using the psoas muscle area index (PMI) to define sarcopenia (HR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.84-4.46, P < 0.001; I² = 0%, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.604). Sarcopenia was not associated with higher late mortality (HR = 2.15, 95%CI: 0.89-5.22, P = 0.090; I² = 91.0%, P_{heterogeneity} < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.14-12.84, P = 0.792; I² = 90.5%, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.001), and death, HF-related hospitalization (HR = 1.37, 95%CI: 0.59-3.16, P = 0.459; I² = 62.0%, P_{heterogeneity} = 0.105). The sensitivity analysis revealed no outlying study in the analysis of the association between sarcopenia and MACE after coronary intervention.

Conclusion

Sarcopenia is associated with poor MACE outcomes in patients with CAD. The results could help determine subpopulations of patients needing special monitoring after CAD surgery. The present study included several kinds of participants; although non-heterogeneity was found, interpretation should be cautious.

SUBMITTER: Xue Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8439080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.MethodPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.ResultsHCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).ConclusionOur meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.